Study: Organic food no more nutritious than standard stuff

[General Zod]

And now for something completely different.

(Reuters) - Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a U.S. study.

"People choose to buy organic foods for many different reasons. One of them is perceived health benefits," said Crystal Smith-Spangler, who led a team of researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care.

"Our patients, our families ask about, 'Well, are there health reasons to choose organic food in terms of nutritional content or human health outcomes?'"

She and her colleagues reviewed more than 200 studies that compared either the health of people who ate organic or conventional foods or, more commonly, nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves.

The foods included organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, poultry eggs and milk.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, organic farms have to avoid the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics. Organic livestock must also have access to pastures during grazing season.

Many of the studies used, though, didn't specify their standards for what constituted "organic" food, which can cost as much as twice what conventional food costs, the researchers wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Smith-Spangler and her colleagues found there was no difference in the amount of vitamins in plant or animal products produced organically and conventionally - and the only nutrient difference was slightly more phosphorous in the organic products.

Organic milk and chicken may also contain more omega-3 fatty acids, but that was based on only a few studies.

More than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.

Smith-Spangler told Reuters Health it was uncommon for either organic or conventional foods to exceed the allowable limits for pesticides, so it was not clear whether a difference in residues would have an effect on health.

But others said more research is needed to fully explore the potential health and safety differences between organic and conventional foods, and it was premature to say organic foods aren't any healthier than non-organic versions.

"Right now I think it's all based on anecdotal evidence," said Chensheng Lu, who studies environmental health and exposure at the Harvard School of Public Health. bit.ly/PShmuj

(Reporting from New York by Genevra Pittman at Reuters Health; Editing by Elaine Lies and Robert Birsel)

My years of pooh-poohing on Organic food as a marketing term are suddenly justified. If you'll excuse me I'm feeling incredibly smug right now.

[Purple]

Except that this.

More than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.

The health benefits are not in the stuff you do get but the stuff you don't. That and organically farmed meat generally tends to taste better.

[General Zod]

Except that this.

More than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.

The health benefits are not in the stuff you do get but the stuff you don't. That and organically farmed meat generally tends to taste better.

The problem is a lot of places don't bother defining what "organic" means. Does it mean free range? No antibiotics? If so why call it organic? Organic is a vague term used for marketing purposes.

[Purple]

Except that this.

More than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.

The health benefits are not in the stuff you do get but the stuff you don't. That and organically farmed meat generally tends to taste better.

The problem is a lot of places don't bother defining what "organic" means. Does it mean free range? No antibiotics? If so why call it organic? Organic is a vague term used for marketing purposes.

Sadly yes, "organic" has become a catch all term for marketing just like "green". But while I am not really an expert on these things I am relatively sure that the EU has different standards on this than the US. As in, that it's more tightly regulated. So our experiences might differ.

[Sea Skimmer]

To be labeled and sold as organic in the US a product must meet specific USDA guidelines. That includes no antibiotics, and use of only specific pesticides. Course the article already said basically said this but people seem t have missed it

[Alyeska]

Except that this.

More than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.

The health benefits are not in the stuff you do get but the stuff you don't. That and organically farmed meat generally tends to taste better.

The problem is a lot of places don't bother defining what "organic" means. Does it mean free range? No antibiotics? If so why call it organic? Organic is a vague term used for marketing purposes.

Organic used to have strict requirements and definitions. That is until the food industry saw that it was a new area for profit and paid the FDA to define Organic. And when the definition was too strict convinced the FDA to tweak the definitions into a sufficiently loose definition that its practically worthless.

The people who developed the original organic standards are utterly pissed that the food industries got involved. Labels are now meaningless.

[Executor32]

Organic was a stupid, meaningless label to begin with, since all food is organic by definition.

[Losonti Tokash]

Ho ho ho, you are hilarious.

[Executor32]

Really? I wasn't joking. I'm not sure what else they could've called it without being too wordy, but you can't get much more vague and meaningless than 'organic' when you're talking about food.

[Simon_Jester]

Executor, "organic" is as accurate a term as any other for "food grown without synthetic chemicals." About the only other word I can think of is "natural," and I'm sure you could nitpick that just as effectively.

[PainRack]

Except that this.

More than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.

The health benefits are not in the stuff you do get but the stuff you don't. That and organically farmed meat generally tends to taste better.

I will submit that any non subjective taste comes from the fact that organic meat is usually fresher/etc, and thus isn't fluffed up the same as industrial meat with the sodium/water mixture.

As for detectable pesticide residue, that just means washing your veggies, something you're SUPPOSED to do, organic or non organic(E-coil spinach anyone?) and not eating your pork/chicken undercooked. Unless you want salmonella and trichonosis.

[Executor32]

Executor, "organic" is as accurate a term as any other for "food grown without synthetic chemicals." About the only other word I can think of is "natural," and I'm sure you could nitpick that just as effectively.

It's not perfect, but it's better than 'organic'. At least then, you can infer that it's produced using 'natural' methods without having to rely on a novel and completely arbitrary connotation.

[Alyeska]

Organic was a stupid, meaningless label to begin with, since all food is organic by definition.

Want some cheese with that whine?

[Executor32]

How is that whining, exactly? Please, enlighten me.

[Alyeska]

How is that whining, exactly? Enlighten me.

You are bitching that because the label isn't technically accurate it is worthless. Even though its implied meaning is understood by your average consumer.

A marketing term that isn't technically accurate, but is understood by the consumer....

You are whining.

[Executor32]

Without the arbitrary connotation made up by some marketing exec, it's a meaningless term when applied to food. If they called it 'natural' or 'all-natural' or something like that, even if it's a bit vague, I'd have no problem with the label.

[Purple]

Except that this.

More than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.

The health benefits are not in the stuff you do get but the stuff you don't. That and organically farmed meat generally tends to taste better.

I will submit that any non subjective taste comes from the fact that organic meat is usually fresher/etc, and thus isn't fluffed up the same as industrial meat with the sodium/water mixture.

That and organic grown animals are far more likely to have proper exercises as opposed to stuff like factory grown chickens leading to a better meat texture.

[PeZook]

Without the arbitrary connotation made up by some marketing exec, it's a meaningless term when applied to food. If they called it 'natural' or 'all-natural' or something like that, even if it's a bit vague, I'd have no problem with the label.

Yeah, that's the problem with the label. That it's arbitrary. Because words are never arbitrary!

"Organic" is catchy and flows off the tongue better, and it stuck and people understand what it means. Seriously, why the fuck do you need to go all pedantic and ensure that all categories we use are technically accurate? Are you gonna go to a sailor's convention and bitch and moan how they use dumbass names for things?

"Oh, it's not the starboard side! Your rudder is in the middle of the boat, retards!"

[Haruko]

People often equate organic with sustainable farming practices, which might include the selling of foods locally. Unfortunately, organic does not necessarily mean local, which is one of the ways the label organic may cause confusion; the propensity for verbal dispute is great with the many definitions floating around. That said, the selling of produce locally is part of what the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization had in mind when, in their 3 May, 2007, report, they said, "Farming all arable land according to organic precepts would produce enough to feed mankind." As pointed out by food experts interviewed in Jean-Paul Jaud's Food Beware: The French Organic Revolution (emphasis added):

On average, for a lot of products from intensive industrial farming, you could multiply by three or four the price on the label. They get generous subsidies for producing in that way. The cost of cleaning up pollution, the health costs, the economic cost when there's overproduction, prices plummet and they demand compensation... All those costs are externalized, they're not added to the price, but they're carried over to your taxes. If they put the real cost on the label, these seemingly cheap products would be more expensive than organic. This needs to be said, loud and clear!

The idea isn't to go organic overnight. I'm not that interested in it. But to say that there are natural products, there are producers, and it's good stuff... Going organic also means saying, 'There are important environmental factors too.' The fact that a yoghurt has traveled 3,000km to end up on your plate... Does that make sense?

In the Gard we were the first to start this idea of local organic agriculture in canteens. If produce comes from Italy or Spain and has to be transported in conditions that cause pollution, clogging up our motorways... Why do we need those goods, even if they are cheap?

And food expert Marion Nestle, in "Organic nutrients: the debates continue":

I have long argued that functional foods (in which nutrients are added over and above those that are already present in the foods) are not about improving health; they are about improving marketing. Evaluating foods on the basis of their content of one or another nutrient is what Michael Pollan calls "nutritionism." Nutritionism is about marketing, not health.

I am a great supporter of organic foods because their production reduces the use of unnecessary chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones, and favors more sustainable production practices. Yes, some organic foods will be higher in some nutrients than some conventional foods. But so what? Customers who can afford to buy organic foods are unlikely to be nutrient deficient. What's at stake in the furor over this issue is market share. What should be at stake is the need to produce food -- all food -- more sustainably.

Leaving aside the use of organic as a marketing term, there is a more substantive meaning understood by agriculturalists, the UNFAO, many small farmers, food experts, etc, a meaning that is not concerned with whether food tastes better, but whether the global food production system is sustainable.

Heh, while I am on the subject, I cannot help but recall "Crops, ponds destroyed in quest for food safety," a 13 July, 2009, article by the San Francisco Chronicle that was re-posted in this forum, and to which I replied:

"In 16 years of handling nearly every major food-borne illness outbreak in America, I can tell you I've never had a case where it's been linked to a farmers' market," Marler said.

That pretty much says it all.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Meh, this really is not that surprising. Health is a lot more about lifestyle than diet. Sure, diet can play a significant factor, but eating all healthy food while sitting on the couch and playing video games 15 hours a day isn't going to "make you" healthy. And if you exercise regularly (and efficiently ... most people that go to the gym to "work out" are doing a remarkably bad job of actually doing anything helpful, but that's another story) you can get away with eating more "bad" food than other people without it adversely impacting your health.

[PainRack]

That and organic grown animals are far more likely to have proper exercises as opposed to stuff like factory grown chickens leading to a better meat texture.

heh. I eaten "wild" boar and kampung chicken. The wild boar tastes a bit tough and had less fat, which resulted in less taste. Chicken.... that's a different kettle of fish though.

After reading up on factory farming and how chickens have respiratory problems due to the fat they grow in their breasts and etc, I can see the reasons why.

[Purple]

That and organic grown animals are far more likely to have proper exercises as opposed to stuff like factory grown chickens leading to a better meat texture.

heh. I eaten "wild" boar and kampung chicken. The wild boar tastes a bit tough and had less fat, which resulted in less taste. Chicken.... that's a different kettle of fish though.

After reading up on factory farming and how chickens have respiratory problems due to the fat they grow in their breasts and etc, I can see the reasons why.

Well, the wild boar is basically a different beast altogether than your domestic pigs. It's supposed to taste quite different than them. Out of curiosity, do you recall how it was prepared? I assume some sort of stew.

[PainRack]

To be honest, I have no idea....

My only memories was that this taste different, a bit tougher and had a different taste. It wasn't a stew though, but rather some kinda roast pork.


Heh. At least I knew what I was eating. I'm supposed to have eaten dog stew before in my lifetime, but as a kid, I retain no memories whatsoever of the incident.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I had wild boar in sausage form once. Very tasty stuff, especially when washed down with a fine Belgian brew.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A more relevant reason for organic foods is sustainability of agriculture. We have limited resources on this planet and if agriculture is using them up, we should try to develop ways to eliminate that. Organic comes closer by using fewer fossil fuels, and by engaging in nitrogen fixing and other soil recovery practices rather than intensive monoculture.